Well, I disagree, obviously.

I believe Palestinian radicalism is created by Israel's behavior, much in the same line argues.

But ultimately where it comes from doesn't matter. The fact is that it's there, and somehow, with that as a given, you will have to find a solution for Israel's fundamental security problem, which is what I'm asking you about.

If you believe that Palestinians are inherently radical, what are you suggesting? That there is no burden on Israel to find a solution? That any amount of cruelty can be exacted on the Palestinians because, after all, "they are the problem"?

As I've pointed out, these roads lead to nowhere. Israel stands to lose the most, and that's a reality you seem unwilling to accept.

It doesn't matter where you believe Palestinian radicalism comes from.

The reality of the situation is that roughly as many Palestinians as Israelis live in the land Israel now occupies, which fundamentally compromises Israeli security.


Let me ask it simply:

You seem to believe Palestinians are somehow inherently radical.

So what?

Moral arguments aside, it should be obvious that Israel is creating radicalism through its oppression.

Israel can argue for the moral high ground until the cows come home, but at the end of the day Israeli security will be fundamentally compromised unless and until they actually solve the Palestinian issue, and that is going to involve dealing with reality rather than fantasy.


Today, Israel is still in a position to pursue a solution that favors Israeli long-term interests. In ten or twenty years from now, that likely won't be the case anymore.


I've said this before and I'll say it again: there will be a time when Israel is no longer the dominant player in the Middle-East. This is simply inevitable.

How do you suppose Israel would fare in such a situation?

Yes, I saw that. Two-state solutions over the years were shot down by the Palestinians. To my eyes, looking at the maps, they all seem absurd on their face. What Levy is about is one state with equal rights for all. — tim wood

He points towards the fact that every Israeli government since 1967 has supported the Israeli settlement policy and thereby intentionally sought to make a two-state solution impossible. This exact fact is also reiterated time and time again in the relevant UNSC resolutions, like the one I have already linked.

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967
lines,

[...]

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps,
consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed
in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground,
which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State
reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and
for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the
Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal
validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major
obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and
comprehensive peace;

[...]

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential
for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken
immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the
two-State solution; — United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

etc. etc.

This idea that the Palestinians are the ones to blame for the failure of the two-state solution is not really a serious one.

[...] how do the Israelis protect themselves from anything and everything from rocket and terrorist attacks to invasions? — tim wood

The behavior that attracts the harshest criticism has nothing to do with Israel protecting itself. (occupation, apartheid, settlements, etc.)

Like any state, Israel must follow international law.

But the history suggests that not only will the Palestinians not agree, but will act to subvert any possible agreement. — tim wood

I don't think history suggests that at all.

This is what Gideon Levy, a well-known Israeli journalist and author, has to say about it.

As to population, if ultimately the Jews in Israel cannot sustain their own population, then indeed they will eventually disappear. — tim wood

I don't think Israeli Jews will disappear under a 'one-state solution' - it is not quite that grave.

However it would require certain political groups in Israel to relinquish the idea of Israel as a Jewish nation state, because when (more than) half its constituency is Muslim and is given equal rights, obviously Israel would cease to be a Jewish state.

This is anathema to a large portion of Israelis, and somewhat understandably so. However, the price of holding on to this Jewish nation state ideal is painfully clear.

It appears that ownership of the West Bank falls to Israel — tim wood

Israel is considered a belligerent occupier of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and the Golan Heights since 1967 under international law. A whole slew of UNSC resolutions have been adopted to that end, each of which has reaffirmed the occupied status of the relevant areas and the illegality of the occupation.

___________________________________

I hold it is at least debatable as to who is creating unlivable conditions in Gaza - maybe the Palestinians have something to do with that? — tim wood

Israel controls everything and everyone that goes in and out of Gaza. So no, the Palestinians aren't the ones turning Gaza into an open air prison.

Israel’s sweeping restrictions on leaving Gaza deprive its more than two million residents of opportunities to better their lives, Human Rights Watch said today on the fifteenth anniversary of the 2007 closure. The closure has devastated the economy in Gaza, contributed to fragmentation of the Palestinian people, and forms part of Israeli authorities’ crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against millions of Palestinians.

[...]

This policy has reduced travel to a fraction of what it was two decades ago, Human Rights Watch said. Israeli authorities have instituted a formal “policy of separation” between Gaza and the West Bank, despite international consensus that these two parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory form a “single territorial unit.” Israel accepted that principle in the 1995 Oslo Accords, signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israeli authorities restrict all travel between Gaza and the West Bank, even when the travel takes place via the circuitous route through Egypt and Jordan rather than through Israeli territory. — Human Rights Watch

_________________________________________

As to the West Bank, I agree. If the Israelis are creating unlivable conditions on the West Bank, then they should both stop and reverse those actions. — tim wood

That's not an "if".

West Bank Access Restrictions (June, 2020)

___________________________________________

Please make your case for "ethnic cleansing." — tim wood

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions, — United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

___________________________________________

Flagrant? — tim wood

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace; — United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

___________________________________________

And a joint Israeli-Palestinian state so that the Palestinians have a fast track to being equal stakeholders. — tim wood

Well, at least we are in agreement there. But do you understand that if Palestinians were to be given equal rights, there would be more Palestinians living in Israel than Jews, and Israel would subsequently cease to be a Jewish state?

This is why Israel's hard line political class has done everything in its power to avoid that from happening, and it has had to resort to apartheid.

2) what should the Israelis do? — tim wood

They should start with carrying out the dozens of (legally binding) UNSC resolutions calling them, among other things, to stop settling the West Bank, to stop creating unlivable living conditions on the West Bank and Gaza, end it's illegal occupation of the OPT and work towards a two-state solution, etc. as agreed upon in relevant resolutions.

They should probably also stop skirting the line of genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, and Israeli officials should probably also stop openly stating that they wish to commit these crimes against humanity in Gaza and the OPT.

Maybe if the state of Israel stops its flagrant breaches of IHL and human rights, its neighbors would change their disposition towards them.


I mean, this is obvious. Things get a lot more complicated if what you're actually asking is what Israel should do if it wants to continue everything listed above and suffer no consequences for it.

The peace talks in March/April 2022 which were blocked by the West.

The contents of that peace talk were already known to us via the accounts of, for example, Jeffrey Sachs and Naftali Bennett.

Now we have first-hand accounts from the people directly involved on the Ukrainian side, like former Ukrainian ambassador and diplomat Oleksandr Chalyi, which I discussed here.

It is also confirmed by Zelensky's former spokesperson Oleksiy Arestovych, who gave an interview recently where he called for a more realistic and less emotional approach to the conflict.

Poland Is ‘Next’ After Russia Wins Ukraine War, Putin Ally Says (Aleksey Zhuravlyov)
— Carley Welch · The Messenger · Jan 14, 2024 — jorndoe

If the Russians were really interested in conquest, why would they negotiate a peace in the opening stages of their invasion where they gave back occupied territory and WE were the ones to block the deal?

There's no way you can square that circle, and articles like these are warmongering in its purest form.

Don't think of it as alternative terminology, but using accurate language, and demand from others also that they use accurate language.

Don't allow a Netanyahu to pretend to speak for all Jews, when in fact he speaks only for Israelis, and only a (ever-shrinking) portion of them.

So to an extent, using the phrase anti-semite is counterproductive and deepens the rift between Jews and everyone else. — Punshhh

What I think is important most of all, is to stop talking about "the Jews" as though it is some monolithic entity.

Actors like the Netanyahu government or uncouth lobby groups like AIPAC try to foster this intentionally, acting as though they represent "the Jews", when in fact they represent very narrow, (and in these cases quite problematic) agendas.

The ultimate result of this, is that these actors and groups present an image of undue legitimacy, whereas the people that are involuntarily associated with them ("the Jews") unduly suffer in the blowback.

Calling out these specific interests, what they stand for and who they represent exposes them and denies them the use of these labels as a shield against criticism.

Part of me says that the world deserves Trump. — Hanover

In terms of foreign policy he can hardly do worse than the Biden administration.

An isolationist America might actually produce a peaceful putting asleep of the American empire, rather than a world war which is what the US is coursing straight towards under this clownshow of an administration.

I like how you turned that one around. :lol:

Russia looking to start WW3 against a power bloc that has a GDP roughly 20 times greater than it, ...

... or simply the MIC pushing propaganda to start the largest arms build-up since WW2 so it can profit exorbitantly and probably bring WW3 closer than it actually is now?

The US is probably also in on this, hoping to militarize Europe and provoke a wider war between it and Russia, to avoid either from profiting too much when the US will be inevitably crippled by conflicts with China and North Korea in the Pacific, and other conflicts elsewhere.

Indian media sharing footage of the attack that took place on a Greek-owned cargo ship that took place today.

This might give people an idea of the type of ordnance the Houthi are using.

Obviously, these aren't Taliban-style IEDs strapped together with duct tape, but actual weapons of war that pose a serious threat to civilian and military shipping.

Military vessels are generally able to withstand multiple impacts of this kind. For frigate/destroyer-sized vessels, three impacts would be a conservative estimate. Civilian ships, depending on size and age, may perish to fire and flooding after even one.

This is a very interesting subject, but perhaps a little off-topic for the thread. Lets continue this discussion in the future. :pray:

What's wrong with the UK? They are good fighters and they have a great armed forces. Also, they are still committed to European safety, even if they are on an Island. — ssu

Ukrainian official: Johnson Forced Kyiv to Refuse Russian Peace Deal (The European Conservative)

This is the reason.

The UK belongs to the Anglosphere, and together with other countries from the Anglosphere follows foreign policy that is heavily aligned to the US. The Anglosphere consists of exclusively island nations. (The US and Canada being essentially an 'island' in every practical sense)

These nations do not share the same security concerns as the European mainland, so should not be permitted to have this kind of influence over European (mainland) security.

And with the EU there's one thing that I've learnt to be true: the more you know about how it really operates, the more angry you become. — ssu

Quite so. It's an abomination, sadly. I think if Europe wants to remain functional and sovereign, it needs to replace the EU with an entirely different structure. I estimate the chances of that happening to be very low, so for the foreseeable future we're stuck with this mess.

But anyway, I'm for a loose union that still gives a lot of power to the individual countries because let's face it: the EU has done a really poor job on creating an universal European identity. Only the English have succeeded in creating an unifying identity with being British. But to be an European, well, it's like being an Asian or African... — ssu

Personally, I think a military alliance structure like NATO, but without the US and the UK, would be perfect. European nations economies function in vastly different ways, and the idea of an economic union has caused serious issues all over and I don't think was ever feasible.

Other elements like open borders (but with protected outer borders) I think would be fine as well.

I'm not sure about a "European identity" - attempts at trying to force something like that are silly, heavy-handed and probably doomed to fail (also reeks of communism) - but I do genuinely feel like I have a lot in common with other Europeans. We share a lot of history, and have reconciled the good and the bad. I also find war between two European nations pretty much unthinkable.

There is a lot of commonality which could be the basis for a more functional union that also respects the differences.

Yes, and Poles voted for him. — ssu

And somewhat predictably so. The Law & Justice Party pursued many foolish policies. This I don't have an issue with.

Well, if you have some articles or references about this, I would genuinely be interested... — ssu

Tens of thousands protest in Poland against ex-ministers' imprisonment (Reuters)

Pro-EU fanatics are silent on Poland's new illiberal turn (The Telegraph)

All of this is taking place as we speak, so we'll have to wait until later for some more brainy stuff.

Taking over the media and throwing the opposition in jail literally within weeks of taking office is probably the most blatant power grab I have ever seen in a western "democracy".

Who here are "they". — ssu

The Brussels elite, which is pursuing its own agendas that, predictably, never involve "less EU" but always "more EU".

Let me ask you, who does Von Der Leyen represent? Certainly not the European people, so who? Personally, I couldn't tell you, and that's what worries me to no end.

How is it an undemocratic abomination? — ssu

For one, we don't get to vote for the leader of the European Union - in this case Von Der Leyen - or other EU organs like the European Central Bank. There's also virtually zero transparency and control with regards to what these people get up to (and who they're working for).

Meanwhile, countries, including my own, are being completely hamstrung in certain fields by European legislation (see Dutch farmers' protests, for example), which, despite never being talked about in Dutch elections and there being no domestic support for much of this legislation, seem to be ever-expanding.


Tusk served as president of the European Council and as president of a transnational organisation known as 'the European People's Party' (an ominous name to be sure, though I'm not sure if it sounds commie or fascist - two branches from the same rotten tree anyway).

Who knows what uncouth, Europhilic lobbies this man is controlled by, but he was clearly sent in response to Poland's anti-EU trend, and indeed was successful in getting elected.

But it's the way he is now cleaning house like some dictator, without any criticism from European legislative organs whatsoever, that should be the canary in the coal mine. Clearly this man was given cart blanche to "get Poland back on track."


They tried the same in the Netherlands, where now a decidedly anti-EU party has become the largest.

Not that long before the elections, two parties on the left conspiciously merged into one, even though these parties did not have all that much in common and this merger will likely bite them in the end. However, together they did have a chance at winning upcoming the election.

Then, notorious Europhile Frans Timmermans was summoned out of nowhere to lead this questionable alliance. Timmermans had been working for the EU in relatively major positions for some 10 years, and architected the European Green Deal (which has been a total disaster for the Netherlands, by the way).

Long before the elections the propaganda machine was already churning, extolling him and labeling him possible 'future Dutch prime minister', etc., even though it is now clear that the anti-EU party probably won specifically because so many people did not want Timmermans as PM.


What this should tell you, is that the EU is not some impartial legislative body that follows the will of the European nations, but in fact is trying to influence the European nations' democratic processes towards a ever more EU, and often 'slipping in the cracks' to do so.

It's an undemocratic, untransparent abomination.

Yet that credible deterrent can be viewed always by the Kremlin as a threat that is out to get them. It needs an enemy to justify it's authoritarian grip. — ssu

Hmm. Maybe, but what enemy would that be? In the period between 1999 - 2013 Putin tried very hard to have good relations with the West. To a large extent he succeeded, and ties between Europe and Russia were good.

In my opinion, that was a perfect template for long-term stability, and it's hard to see why the Russians would have wanted to break that status quo by arbitrarily warmongering.

Lithuania surely will ask for defense assistance of article 5. The real issue is how treaty members will react to this. How will their populations far from Lithuania respond?

Is this a reason to go to a conflict which can lead to full scale nuclear war? — ssu

The thing I would worry about most in this scenario, once again, is Uncle Sam who basically has the power to send Europe into a nuclear war while it sits thousands of miles across the pond.

I've said this before, but the Americans don't share in the cost of large-scale war on the European mainland, in fact have historically benefitted from it. It is extremely foolish of us to put our fate in their hands.

In your scenario, what happens when the Americans decide large-scale, potentially nuclear, war between Europe and Russia is in its interest because it wants to "weaken Russia"?

The Yankees can and will climb the escalation ladder as far as they want and there's nothing Europe can do about it. Well, Europeans can whinge, maybe. I'm sure there will be plenty of whinging.

If, in reaction to your scenario, the Europeans want de-escalation, but the Americans covertly fire a 10kt nuclear weapon from an SSBN in the Baltic, what do you suppose will happen?

How so?

So far the Houthi don't appear to be backing down.

Honestly, I get the feeling the US and allies are falling for a trap here. Bombing campaigns are the NATO's bread and butter, and it was the predictable reaction to the Houthi attacks.

Since US diplomacy has completely failed, the "hammer" is the only tool in the West's tool box. Simultaneously the US is spread so thin that it can't afford to commit anywhere, greatly diminishing the impact of said hammer and making it almost bound to end in a dud.

Meanwhile, judging by the way Hamas has managed to mitigate the damage done by Israeli bombing strikes it appears that such actors aren't as vulnerable to this type of warfare as they once were.

For a closer example of what looming fascism might look like, I would look at what is happening in Poland right now under Donald Tusk.

Unsurprisingly, it comes from the undemocratic abomination that is the European Union.

This is nothing other than the EU sending out its agents to quell anti-EU movements from taking root, which must now be a growing worry to the Brussels elite. In the Netherlands they tried the same with Frans Timmermans, but they failed. In Poland they succeeded.

There should be antagonism towards that. There was towards the Third Reich. Was and is towards apartheid. — jorndoe

Speaking of apartheid and genocide, this is currently taking place in Israel with either "unconditional support" or tacit approval of virtually every western government.

The West should get its own house in order before it starts lecturing and antagonizing other countries, because currently it has zero credibility.

But you know, if Americans want to go to war with Russia over democratic principles that would be a nice joke. Fight that battle without us Europeans, though. Will you be volunteering for the frontlines?

In my opinion, this complacency and decadence we see within the EU is a post-Cold War thing. During the Cold War we had proper armies - way larger than what would be required today to provide a deterrent against Russia. So I believe we can do better.

Though, it is important to stress that even though I believe we should have a credible deterrent, we should not combine an arms build-up with antagonism towards Russia. A deterrent should have as its purpose stable relations between east and west.

The reason it won't happen until Europe shakes the US yoke is because the US does not want stable relations between Europe and Russia.

In fact, sowing discord on the European mainland is a strategy written down by Mackinder in his famous article 'The Geographical Pivot of History', and echoed by people like Brzezinski in 'The Grand Chessboard'.

Mackinder was British, by the way. It stems from a time when the British still had illusions of empire and world domination, but it appears they have not forgotten their old tricks.

It is no coincidence it was the US and UK who sought to block peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Both are island nations who do not share in the cost of war on the European mainland but have historically benefitted from it.

The EU has a combined GDP rougly equal to the US, and roughly ten times greater than Russia.

If Europe were even to remotely get its act together, there'd be no Russian threat whatsoever.

So why doesn't it? The enemy is at the gates after all!

My sense is that the US is and has been pulling strings in the background in order to keep Europe nice and docile, instead turning into the peer competitor that it could be and potentially shaking the US yoke.

And therein lies the problem. We share an "alliance" (though vassalage would be a better term) with a belligerent hegemon that lives across the pond. It doesn't share our security concerns, in fact being an island nation it benefits from sowing discord on the Eurasian mainland - divide & conquer.

This relationship we have with the US won't keep Europe safe, rather the opposite is true. The US is a dangerous ally.

Again, if Europe tried even a little bit there would be no conceivable Russian threat and we could enjoy stable relations with our eastern neighbor backed up by healthy deterrence.

That would not be in American interests though, which, I suspect, is why it doesn't happen.

Lack of leadership, I say. — ssu

I'll agree. The Biden administration looks like a set of children playing with fire, and where I had sort of expected some foreign policy veterans to show up to avoid utter disaster, nothing of the sort seems to be happening.

lol, what? — Count Timothy von Icarus

LOL

Fascism: Idolatry of the State

This is a pretty interesting take on fascism .

The Biden administration has gotten itself into one giant mess, and seems to have no clue how to get out of it nor possesses the diplomatic credibility to ameliorate the damage.

However, even though on the surface the participation of NATO / EU / Trading nations seems sort of obvious, I'm not sure if it actually is.

The current attacks on shipping are a direct result of the Israel-Gaza war. Many in Europe and even India are critical of both Israel's and the US policy vis-á-vis Gaza and the Palestinians.

My sense is that their willingness to put sailors and vessels at risk to clean up the mess the United States and Israel created is probably quite low, especially considering US-EU relations of late.

There is even some indication that the Houthis are avoiding targeting anything that isn't related to the US or Israel, which means the EU may have more to lose by getting involved.

Furthermore, whereas Somalia was an isolated, failed state and Somali piracy was limited in both scale and weaponry, the Houthis and the interests they represent (Iran / wider Muslim world / perhaps even the Iran-Russia-China "alliance") carry much more gravity.

Just think of France's rapidly dwindling position in Africa right now. If they piss off the wrong people, they will lose their entire former empire (or what was left of it). It would be for the better if you ask me, but the French elite probably disagree.

In other words, the Houthi have friends in high places, and anyone who gets involved on the US or Israel's behalf can expect retaliation that targets their weak points.

Lastly, as we've discussed earlier, the weaponry the Houthi are using is extremely dangerous to a navy that isn't prepared for this (new) generation of warfare. Nations will think twice about putting themselves in the crosshairs.

Even navies that are capable of dealing with this type of threat will face the monetary cost of sending a taskforce that can defend itself 24/7.

With the Somalis it was completely different. A navy vessel operating alone would be perfectly fine. The piracy was carried out by armed men in small boats who intended to board merchant vessels. What the Houthi are doing today is completely different.

Consider perhaps also the risk of getting dragged into a war with the Houthi / Yemen or even Iran by operating under US-led task forces

There's not much reason to take the WWII comparisons seriously anyway. If people want to argue Israel and Hamas are engaged in total war, they have no basis to condemn Hamas' actions because it is simply fighting according to the rules by which such a war is fought.

, US, Britain carry out strikes against Houthis in Yemen, officials say (Reuters)

Looks like the next step towards escalation. I doubt it was unexpected by the Houthis and Iran, and I wonder what their reaction will be.

And this brings us back to fascism: the overwhelming sense of crisis and the threat by evil outsiders.

I really can't say much more than that. It is exactly what seems to be going on with that. — schopenhauer1

In my opinion, this is a classic example of framing.

One hardly needs to be fascist to believe that the United States political ruling class is rotten to the core and should be removed for the sake of the people. In fact, looking at it from across the pond that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. Obviously whether Trump is a suitable alternative is a whole other question, but this doesn't make him or his supporters fascist.

I mean look at Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. In their debates, they are afraid to trash on the frontrunner who is the most corrupt president we've had in terms of blatantly using democratic means secure his power and whose divisive rhetoric has made the divisions that much greater. They know this, but they barely address Trump's unsuitability to take office, and his offensive behavior because that would mean the base would reprimand by not even considering such blasphemy of their dear leader. But that just shows the lack of backbone on their part. Only Chris Christie has spoken out forcefully in the presidential primary. Hell, Nikki Haley might even be letting open the possibility of being Trump's VP! — schopenhauer1

What of the Democrats, who shunned RFK Jr. and forced him to go independent? What of Hillary and Bernie?

Undemocratic and tasteless though such things may be, they're hardly exclusive to Trump or the Republican party. It actually seems to be a core feature of American democracy.

And it's also typically democratic to point fingers at the other side and ignore the own side's role in the myriad of problems that plague the system.

If one wants to understand what is going on politically, first we must dismiss buzzwords like "fascism". There's nothing going on in the western world currently that even remotely resembles fascism. Nothing that even hints of it - no, Trump isn't fascist either. Talking about "fascist elements" is just rabble-rousing nonsense.

A better word would be "bad loserism", since it more closely captures the nature (and ultimately the limited gravity) of what is going on, namely adults throwing tantrums because their team didn't win the race.

This isn't unique to the US. A similar thing happened in other countries, including my own, where a somewhat controversial party came out the biggest in the last election. In Germany we see the same sort of thing with the AfD (though they have yet to win).

When "their side" doesn't win, suddenly people start questioning democracy, talking about how "fascists" are taking over, etc.

Trump did it when Biden won. In the Netherlands some lefties did it when Wilders won. Germany is now questioning democracy because the AfD might win. Undoubtedly if Trump wins the next election we'll see the same type of thing from the Democrats, etc.

It's all very childish.


So, why is this happening?

- Countries all throughout the West are going through a transitional period, where the ruling political class is being replaced ("populists are taking over"). The desire for meaningful change is high, and elections are close, so all the major sides (and even wild cards like Trump) believe they have a shot at winning.

- A thorough poisoning of the information landscape by propaganda and wrong-headed adverstisement (through algorithms and AI, for example) makes the legitimacy of governments plummet even further. This is something all parties are guilty of, the ruling political class perhaps most of all. Creating internet echo chambers further cements in all sides this belief that they are going to win.

And as such, the democratic process loses its credibility, and people start to refuse to accept the outcomes of elections and fueled by emotion will take all sorts of foolish actions and make foolish statements.


Not fascism, but "bad loserism".

The scary thing is the denial of fascism from Trump supporters. It’s sort of a gaslighting version. — schopenhauer1

So Trump is fascist and anyone who thinks that's nonsense is a Trump supporter and trying to gaslight you? :brow: Casting suspicion on anyone who disagrees with you is not a great starting point for discussion, and would sooner suggest that what you're looking for is an echo chamber.

Personally, I think the idea that the US is anywhere near or even nearing fascism is so humurous it's hard for me to take it seriously.

It would be nice to know some more details about how complex this truly was, but a strike of this size would have been very dangerous to isolated navy vessels. A carrier group is obviously in a whole other ballpark. The Houthi can't hurt that, unless they expend hundreds of missiles and drones.

My sense is that the Houthi are raising the threat environment, and possibly gathering intel on the effectiveness of their bombs and strike patterns. It's hard to imagine other fleets operating indepedently under this type of threat. I think everyone will be leaning on the Americans.

These are the type of mental gymnastics only an intellectual could cook up. :rofl:

Good place to start. I know revolution seems most likely (historical precedent would back that horse), but can we throw out the moral epiphany (not just in the ruler(s), but in those ruled)? Could we soften “moral epiphany” to a kind of rock bottom “moment of clarity” or is the addiction going to take us all the way down? — Elysium House

A revolution is usually the reaction to hitting a form of rock bottom. The problem is, the citizens will always hit rock bottom long before the elite will, and thus the motivation for radical change won't come from the elite.

Moreover, once such a stage has been reached, the citizens will no longer accept any kind change that comes from the current leadership. As such, the leadership is incentivized to struggle until the very end.

I'm open to hearing examples that suggest otherwise. Maybe there are situations I am not considering.

Also, the "moral epiphany" isn't as unrealistic as one might think. History has known many great reformers who voluntarily ceded parts of their power to better govern their states. However, the larger the decision-making group at the top, the smaller the chance that it will consist of enough wise individuals who could push for such a move. Wisdom is rare after all, and among the ruling elite exceptionally so it seems.

Ironically, the chance of fundamental reforms may be higher under despotism than it is under democracy. Needless to say it's not a great alternative.

Up until now, there have been some folks who refused to accept the realities of the negotiations that took place in March/April 2022.

Recently Oleksandr Chalyi went on a panel at the Geneva Center for Security Policy in which he provided more insight into what took place. Chalyi is a former diplomat and Ukrainian ambassador, and was part of the delegation that conducted the peace negotiations in question. In other words, he's giving a first-hand account from the Ukrainian point of view. He also shares some of his own views on the conflict.

Here are some quotes (paraphrased, because his English isn't fluent):

When I try to answer your first question: what are the roots of the Ukrainian war? [...] To my mind this the key roots are firstly geopolitics. Namely, the hard confrontation between the United States and Russia over Ukraine.

This is the main trigger to me for full-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2022.

[...]

To my mind, very quickly after the invasion of February 24th last year, [Putin] understood his historical mistake.

I was in that moment in the group of Ukrainian negotiators. We negotiated with the Russian delegation for practically two months, March and April, a possible peaceful settlement between Ukraine and Russia.

We, as you remember, concluded the so-called Istanbul communiqué, and we were very close in the middle of April to finalize the war with a peaceful settlement.

For some reason it was postponed.

[...]

To my mind, this is my personal view, Putin within one week of the start of his aggression on 24th February very quickly understood he had made a mistake, and tried to do everything possible to conclude an agreement with Ukraine.

It was his personal decision to accept the text of the Istanbul communiqué. It was totally different from the initial ultimatum proposal of Russia which they put before the Ukrainian delegation in Minsk.

So we managed to find a very real compromise.

Putin really wanted to reach a peaceful settlement with Ukraine.

[...]

The Ukrainian-Russian hot war is an integral part of a full-scale cold war between the collective West and Russia over Ukraine. In other words, NATO and the EU are not international security actors or some neutral parties, but real participants in the cold war with Russia over Ukraine. This is my strong belief.

[...]

In general, I am convinced that the key action in ending the war in Ukraine must be taken by the collective West.

It's about their strategic view.

Because now the West, first of all United States, and Germany, France, are in a very special position. [They say:] "We are far away, and ready to do what you ask."

But when I directly ask some decision maker from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United States, Germany, France:

"If, in three months, President Zelensky asks you, together with us, as independent partners, to start some negotiations with Russia on a cease-fire. I will be ready to participate."

You know their first reaction? "No, no! This is your war!"

But then I ask them: "Look boys. But you promised us to do what we asked."

And after this - silence.

It's a very popular slogan: "The key to stop this war is in Moscow." But, I agree, but the key to stop this war is also in Washington, Berlin, Brussels and Paris.

What were the Ukrainians promised and not given by the West? NATO membership probably, Art. 5 guarantees, etc. - but Chalyi does not specify so we're left to ponder.

And what possible reason could the West have for blocking negotiations when the Ukrainians themselves felt they had found a real compromise with Russia? Unbelievable.

In an extensive policy brief he wrote in July 2023 he goes into some more detail, which again paints a bleak picture of the West's role in this war, continuously leading Ukraine along by dangling security guarantees infront of them, but never actually providing them with anything.

And that's of course what we've been arguing here for months. Chalk up another one for team realism.